27 Jul 17
Originally posted by @josephwNo matter D or R they are all multimillionaires.
Don't be absurd. Half the people in office are people like you put their by people like you. 😉
They're all liars left and right. Those in office are a reflection of a corrupt culture. As goes the heart of the people so goes the nation.
Besides, the 2% aren't in office anyway. Except a few, and they buy their way in. They're the ones that have been ba ...[text shortened]... nd they don't give a rat's as about any of us. After all it's the devil's world don't you know?!
https://ballotpedia.org/Net_worth_of_United_States_Senators_and_Representatives
27 Jul 17
Originally posted by @rajk999You're biblically ignorant. God is interested in everyone alike.
God is interested in good and righteous people.
God is interested in eagles, not the parrots.
Read the parable of the Sower and the Seed.
Talkers and boasters like you and your type will be cast into the lake of fire.
And we will both answer to God.
Except Pharisees like you.
27 Jul 17
Originally posted by @fmfWhat role you ask?
What role (and moral obligation) do you think the government has in tackling poverty (aside from, in addition to, in cooperation with charitable non-governmental organisations)?
I'll try to answer this seriously. The government's role is to seize as much of the common man's money as it can and waste it on meaningless, hollow and otherwise useless programs.
At the end of the day 1 in 5 children will go to bed hungry. Even in a nation as wealthy as America. Politicians break more promises than they make, if you can imagine that!
I want the government to stay away from me and mine. I pay my taxes responsibly, but the government spends it wastefully. More government = less freedom. More freedom = less government.
27 Jul 17
Originally posted by @josephwWhat promises do you think politicians should* make - and keep - in addressing the fact that '1 in 5 children go to bed hungry' every day?
At the end of the day 1 in 5 children will go to bed hungry. Even in a nation as wealthy as America. Politicians break more promises than they make, if you can imagine that!
* by "should", I mean morally speaking, what would constitute the right policy in tackling child hunger?
27 Jul 17
Originally posted by @josephwWhat kinds of government programmes would be, from you moral perspective, would be meaningful, substantial and useful regarding poverty [and other issues touched upon by the OP]?
The government's role is to seize as much of the common man's money as it can and waste it on meaningless, hollow and otherwise useless programs.
27 Jul 17
4 edits
Originally posted by @fmfOK, if I've used the word "rationalization" incorrectly, fair enough I withdraw it.
OK, if I've used the word "rationalization" incorrectly, fair enough I withdraw it.
[b]Seems you've bought into many of the rationalizations that are given for not getting it done.
I don't think I have bought into anything. I am interested in discussing the moral mechanics of "getting it done".[/b]
The point wasn't for you to "withdraw it". The point was for you to understand what I had written.
I don't think I have bought into anything. I am interested in discussing the moral mechanics of "getting it done"
That's not surprising. Reread the quote from Wiki.
The "moral mechanics of getting it done" are really simple. They are only complicated for those who have bought into many of the rationalizations that are given for not getting it done.
Underlying greed is what keeps it from getting done. If you need examples of the rationalizations for not getting it done, josephw provided a few:
The government's role is to seize as much of the common man's money as it can and waste it on meaningless, hollow and otherwise useless programs.
At the end of the day 1 in 5 children will go to bed hungry. Even in a nation as wealthy as America. Politicians break more promises than they make, if you can imagine that!
I want the government to stay away from me and mine. I pay my taxes responsibly, but the government spends it wastefully. More government = less freedom. More freedom = less government.
27 Jul 17
Originally posted by @fmfWell, so much for pitching a thought experiment.
Yes. Of course, getting it done is clearly complicated. Identifying a cause as being "greed" is simple. Are you willing to discuss the moral dimension of how to go about providing those who need help with food, shelter, medical care? This thread is not about whether or not the US has the resources to help who need help with food, shelter, medical care. It's about the moral nuts and bolts of doing it.
27 Jul 17
Originally posted by @thinkofoneFeel free to discuss them. It's the thread topic.
The "moral mechanics of getting it done" are really simple.
27 Jul 17
Originally posted by @fmfIf you'd actually take the time to understand what other people write, we might be able to have an intelligent discussion. Instead it seems that all you're willing to do is pick out a sentence or two out of context and comment or ask a question whilst all the while ignoring what's being said in the larger context.
Feel free to discuss them. It's the thread topic.
27 Jul 17
Originally posted by @thinkofoneI am not really interested in anything you have to say that isn't a discussion of the moral nuts and bolts of 'getting it done'.
If you'd actually take the time to understand what other people write, we might be able to have an intelligent discussion. Instead it seems that all you're willing to do is pick out a sentence or two out of context and comment or ask a question whilst all the while ignoring what's being said in the larger context.
27 Jul 17
Originally posted by @fmfWas that your intent when you wrote the following in your OP?
I am not really interested in anything you have to say that isn't a discussion of the moral nuts and bolts of 'getting it done'.
"What are the spiritual, moral, or philosophical dimensions to the debate about the extent to which it is the responsibility of a nation's legally established government to intervene to ensure that "children just must not go hungry" and take action on other similar assertions in Johnson's inaugural address? "
If it was, you really missed the mark there.